Talk:Cross-dressing/Cross-Dressing Discussion Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of inactive discussion. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents 1 Renaming of article 2 Sexual orientation 3 Regarding female cross dressers in history 4 Historical example picture 5 I hope not to be churlish, but...

[edit] Renaming of article

I once more propose moving the article to cross-dressing. If there are no objections, could an admin please delete the redir, so that the article can be moved? -- AlexR

Done. If you find any other redirects needing deletion in the future, I'd suggest listing it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. • Benc • 07:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I was going to llok for that page today. Maybe now we can have some meaningful discussion. -- AlexR 11:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual orientation

The text says: However, most male-bodied cross-dressers prefer female partners. So do most female-bodied.

So everybody who cross-dresses wants a female partner? If true, that implies that female cross-dressers are homosexuals, by and large, and that male cross-dressers are heterosexuals, for the most part. Interesting. In fact, so interesting that it practically demands evidence and explication. It says that the sex of a person has a truly profound influence, in the subset of humans who cross-dress, on whether one is homo- or hetero-sexual.

But.... I suspect that it's just a carelessly constructed sentence. Without knowing the basis for the 2 sentences I wouldn't dare to change them.

Patrick0Moran 06:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"So do most female-bodied. " is unsubstantiated. I'm going to reword it. Dysprosia 06:40, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, my experience confirms that most female bodies CDs prefer female partners. That however may be so only because there is a role model in the lesbian community for people who want to cross dress, while there is none for straight women (or more general, androphiliac female bodied persons). On the other hand, cross-dressing used to be an established part of the gay community, but that has very much changed, and in many parts it is, at least off-stage, frowned upon. So cross-dressing among gay men has declined, while it never quite took of among straight women. So that is merely a cultural matter, albeit a very influencial one. Whether you call that a profound influence is a matter of definition then ;-) --AlexR 11:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding female cross dressers in history

Regarding female cross dressers in history. This is a fairly large topic because before womans liberation many male roles were off-limits to females so it was actually very common to see women dressing up as men to gain access. I've searched Wiki and this is the best place I have found on the topic. It has nothing to do with sexuality, or fetish really. For example I posted Dorothy Lawrence and she did it for one reason only: to gain access to the front lines of WWI so she could make money selling her first-hand accounts. Now, one could speculate on her sexuality, but that's not history, that's specultion. In fact, the military in WWI feared a wave of women imposters trying to gain access to the front lines for various reasons. It really has nothing to do with sexual preferance or fetish or anything like that, which the term "crossdresser" seems to imply. Is there another more appropriate article to discuss this? Or do we need to create one? Certainly, there must be a history book on this subject or even entire sub-field (gender studies?) Stbalbach 20:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's two things you mention: One, what the word cross-dresser implies, and the other the problem with historical figures.

• The word cross-dresser itself does not imply any sexual preferences or fetishes, although it is often associated with both. That however would happen with any word describing cross-gender behaviour, as it happened with this word. After all, it has been coined specifically to avoid these associations - transvestitism, which it replaces, acquired so many of them that it has become pretty useless. (And how many people actually know that even Transsexual does not describe a sexual orientation or preference, and the sex-part was not supposed to imply that, either, when the word was coined?)
  I do agree that the article could be somewhat clearer on the subject; while that information is certainly there, the article is obviously the result of many edits, and little attemting to make one smooth piece. I do not think, however, that there is much need of another article; after all, cross-dresser or cross-dressing is the correct term to use. Expanding the articles on particular cross-dressing people of course would be most useful. (And BTW, the term "sexual imposter" is most certainly incorrect; after all, as far as we know, she did not pose in any particular "sexual" way.)

"sexual imposter" is a British term from the early 20th Century. It is correct in its historical usage, it is what Dorothy was actually called (it was "PC" for the time), but I imagine many people are not aware of that and so it would cause confusion. "Sex" in this case meaning gender. Stbalbach 00:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The other thing is, and I already added a bit about that to the article yesterday, the problem with historical figures and their motives. There are a multitude of motives for cross-dressing, raging from clearly transgender to plain necessity, and about everything in between. Sexual orientation probably played part in some cases, sure, but like all motives is very difficult to detect in hindsight; sexual play and fetishism are even harder to proof, and the later is a 20th century concept, anyway. Not to mention that there is another problem, namely, that we cannot trust even those few documents we have. In times where words and concepts like "transgender" or "transsexual" or even "gender identity" or similar did not exist, and where it is often argued that not even something like a "homosexual identity" (for those cases where sexual orientation might have played a role), and/or where people had to fear persecution simply for cross-dressing, or where the documents we have actually are court documents, we can neither expect that people express themselfes in ways that are sufficiently similar to our own thinking, nor would they have the words to do so. And certainly they had an excellent motive, in cases of persecution, to phrase their explanations in ways that would minimise their punishment. ("I wanted some adventure" would certainly be inappriopriate - but "I am a man inside, no matter what my body says" would in many cases have placed them in mortal danger.)
  So that is a very tricky thing, talking about historical persons who cross-dressed.

So, in conclusion, I'd say this article needs some work, but moving parts of it into another article would need very good reasons, the whole matter does belong here. -- AlexR 23:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree the article needs more neutral emphesis on all the various forms, not just contemporary sub-sets. As I say, this is outside my realm of knowledge otherwise I would provide some kind of historical summary and place the modern usage within that context. Stbalbach 00:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Historical example picture

I am recommending we replace the Joan of Arc picture with the picture of Dorothy Lawrence for a number of reasons. It is not because the Joan picture is not appropriate or not a cross dresser. She is, and it is appropriate. However I believe the Dorthy picture is a better choice, as an example, for the following reasons: 1) The Joan painting her clothing looks feminine, the broad hips, narrow waste, are hallmarks of womens clothing. If it was not painted with armourment details, it would be hard to tell this was not a womans dress. Indeed, armorment did not look like that for men, it is an artists rendition and not historically accurate. 2) The Dorthy picture looks like a man, she is wearing mens clothing, it is historically accurate, a better choice as an example. 3) I would like to bring more exposure to the story of Dorothy and the article in general and this presents an opportunity to do so. 4) The story of Dorothy is almost entirely about her experience cross dressing, which makes for a good example to tie to this article. Thank you for your consideration. Stbalbach 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I hope not to be churlish, but...

After scanning the above series of charges and counter-charges I feel rather uncomfortable about making any comment myself. I can see, however, that part of the problem is due to the difficulties inherent in discussing subjects that involve problematical concepts and problematical vocabulary. Another part of the problem is due to the impossibility of knowing what is in the heart of another human being, and the extreme difficulties that may be experienced just to understand one's own motivation.

I see a problem with the very first sentence. Sorry to re-open old wounds, but the example it provides may be instructive. The sentence says: "Cross-dressing is the act of wearing the clothing of another gender for any reason." That may be one person's definition of what cross-dressing is, but consider what that sentence actually means. There are several levels of con-fusion of real multiplicities into socio-normal simplicities. First, whereas language indicates that there are two sexes, male and female, we find more than XX and XY chromosomal sexual identities, and we find more than the ordinary kinds of male and female genitalia. On top of that, people with male genitalia can have either masculine or feminine gender, and people with female genitalia can have either masculine or feminine gender. The passage quoted would support the conclusion that if a person with male genitalia and a feminine gender wore pants and no bra then that would cross-dressing because the socio-normal behavior of those of the feminine gender is to wear a skirt and a bra or an appropriate "top." And it would indicate that a person with female genitalia but masculine gender would behave socio-normally if that person wore skirt and bra.

I think the blunt and clear explanation of social realities is that in traditional societies people with male genitalia are expected not to wear skirts and bras in normal social situations, and if they do they are said to be cross-dressing. Those with female genitalia are judged to be cross-dressing if they wear masculine attire.

I offer these elementary observations because I suspect that lack of rigor at this fundamental level may be behind much of the rancor of earlier postings.

Did it ever happen that people dragged into the police station for cross-dressing were asked whether (if wearing skirt and bra) their gender was indeed feminine (and vice-versa)? I think not. P0M 04:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed the matter is very complicated, but I do not belive that is the core of the problem here. The problem at hand looks a lot more like oldfashioned transphobia coupled with an overinflated ego to me, and no definition could change that.

At any rate, there are certainly many circumstances which could modify the definition given (or any definiton given), but as you yourself demonstrate, to make an absolutely watertight definition would take several pages at least, because it had to cover every eventuallity. I don't think that would make the article any clearer; plus, I think several eventualities are already covered in the text or in linked texts.

With your examples I have a problem, particularly 1) you mention gender several times, but gender what? Gender identity, gender role, legal gender, gender presentation? Those are not the same thing. 2) You make no difference between self-perception and being percieved by others. What looks like cross-dressing to others does not have to be cross-dressing for the person doing it, and vice versa. And 3) you seem to assume that "language" and "traditional societies" only know two sexes and equate them with gender, but that is by no means always the case. Your "blunt and clear explanation of social realities" do not quite work, either. "People with male genitalia are expected not to wear skirts and bras in normal social situations" is correct for western societies, but then, skirts and bra are not universally seen as the classical female attire, nor are skirts and bra necessary for a female gender presentation. "Those with female genitalia are judged to be cross-dressing if they wear masculine attire" is not even correct for western societies, because women may wear most male clothing items most of the time without having to regard that as cross-dressing or being regarded as cross-dressing.

In conclusion, for now I cannot see any way of phrasing that better, especially since a single-sentence explanation is not even supposed to explain this term, as is evident by the explicit mentioning of more information below. I am however always open to suggestions. -- AlexR 05:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought about going back and specifying that I was taking examples from traditional western society, but that people would probably get the drift.

Actually, too many people assume that the western standard is standard everywhere in the word, so I don't dare making that assumption any more. No insult indended. [AR]

I wasn't the one who used the single word "gender" in the sentence I brought up for discussion. Your point (2) is entirely in agreement with what I was saying.

The sentence in the article works with whatever particular idea of gender is meant, your examples don't. Problem is also that this is the first introductory paragraph for a rather long article, I doubt it would make sense if that paragraph would turn into a page-long explanation. But as I said, ideas of improving it are more than welcome. I myself just can't think right now of a way of putting the matter in there in a way that is appropriate to an introductory paragraph. [AR]

John Money talks about "cross coding" in more than one context. He points to situations in which there is a physiological reality (male genitalia for example) and an external "code" that is supposed to match that physiological state. Male babies and girl babies are hard to tell apart with their diapers on, so in my culture male babies are given blue accouterments and girl babies are given pink ones. That obviates the necessity of asking the sex of the baby, and tells visitors whether to refer to "him" or to "her."

As I understand it, cross-coding is what other people assume and do, not what the person in question does themself. Not quite the same thing, although an article on cross-coding might be a good idea. That way, one could refer to that article and ad a paragraph to this one about the problem and its relations to cross-dressing.

§Can we start to form a common understanding by agreeing that, before Gene or Jean starts to act out his/her sense of self, i.e., at this early age, to dress a baby with male genitalia in pink or to dress a baby with female genitalia in blue would be an instance of cross-coding? P0M 06:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is, no doubt, but that is not the same thing as cross-dressing, which is something you do intentionally. (Although I am not sure whether it would count as cross-coding in Germany, too.) -- AlexR 23:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§That's why I started with a baby, someone who is too young to have his/her own ideas about whether his/her gender is masculine or feminine. What is your point about Germany? That they don't "code" babies? Or that they use a different "code"? Why would it be relevant whether it counts as cross-coding in Germany? P0M 01:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that was your example. If my interpretation of cross-coding as something that applies to things persons do themselfes, too, then say so. I am not particularly familiar with Money's writings.

I mentioned Germany because it seems to me that the blue-pink-thing is a lot more pronounces in the US than it is in Germany. Actually, the cose is known, but I do not think that it is followed all that strictly. Then again, I don't know too many people with small kids, but that is my impression. Which would require the example to state that it is rather US-specifc until people from other regions say otherwise. Then again, it is definitely a minor matter. -- AlexR 04:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ I am just trying to clarify something. I have to lay a foundation of understanding somehow. Since these coding things are conventions there are naturally going to be area-specific or culture-specific. As you already pointed out, after the child comes to consciousness of his/her own gender identity then his/her community may still want or even to require the child to continue coding the same way as before, but the child may want to code the other way. That is to say, the community may require the child to code according to the external genitalia, and the child may want to code according to his/her gender identity. Still o.k. so far? P0M 08:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perfectly OK, as far as cross-dressing that is somehow related to gender identity is concerned.

Generally speaking, I might sound very nitpickish, but since much of the debates about articles relating to trans*-matters stems from misinformation and prejudices rather than facts, I try to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Maybe I am sometimes being overprecise, but better safe than sorry. But nevertheless, I do appreciate your comments. So please don't get the wrong impression. -- AlexR 12:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ Sounds reasonable to me. Let's see if we can get one step further. What does the community call the child's behavior when the child does not code according to the external genitalia? What does the child call his/her (forced) behavior when compelled by the community (or when feeling puckish) the child does code according to the external genitalia but crosswise to his/her gender identity? P0M 01:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those are two very difficult questions, as there are very many factors that come into play.

The child usually does not call his/her behaviour anything, because transgender feelings (in the wider sense) appear very early, at an age where the child most likely does not know any words to describe that feeling with. It "just feels right". When s/he grows older, it would depend very much on the reactions s/he gets, therefore naming "it" would also depend on what s/he heard this behaviour being called. An identity as a cross-dresser, transgender, transsexual etc person (or a Hijra, Two-Spirit, Kathoey etc) does not develop until there is some sort of role model for it that is accessible to the child, at which time, right now, most are not children any more. (That is quite comparable to gays and lesbians; even people who feel and act exclusively homosexual might never develop a corrosponding identity, and the less suitable role models are available, the less likely such an identity is being developed.)

(Sorry, got to cancel here, too tired to proceed. Will write the rest of the answer tonight or tomorrow.) -- AlexR 19:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ If a child, or an adult for that matter, feels that not coding to the external genitalis "just feels right" (to use your words), what you said above suggests that s/he might describe himself/herself as one or more of at least six terms. Among the terms you list is "cross-dresser." So if the external genitalia are male and the costume worn is bra and skirt, for instance, then the person would possibly use the term "cross-dresser", right? I.e., is this the appropriate case in which this person might say s/he is cross-dressing? Or would this person more appropriately say s/he is cross-dressing when wearing clothing that code consistently with his/her genitalia but is inconsistent with his/her gender? P0M 22:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those questions are almost unanswerable, because there are so many variables that come into play. So let me first clarify what I said yesterday: Much would depend on the actual extend of the "transgender feelings" present in a particular case, or the actual gender identity a person feels. There is a vast difference between "I am a girl/boy." and "I like to wear girls/boys clothes occasionally.". There is also a vast difference between what a child and an adult who are assigned male sex and those assigned female sex will experience. A "male" child that likes to dress in female clothes (or stated that s/he feels like a girl or wants to be a girl or whatnot) will feel far more rejection, for example, than a "girl" who prefers male clothes or makes similar statements about being a boy. Not only that, but both will also be taught very different ways of dealing with problems and guidelines on what is or is not acceptable behaviour. (I'll use "male" etc in quotation marks instead of "child assigned male gender" etcpp, it's shorter that way. Same for using "he" and "she" according to the assigned gender, since statements about gender identity are not yet made. When they are made, that will change accordingly.)

Now it seems I should answer the second half of your previous question before I continue. That was "What does the community call the child's behavior when the child does not code according to the external genitalia?" Another one that is difficult to answer. First of all, once more, the reactions differ very much for "boys" and "girls". (What follows now is of course an average description, there will necessarily be cases where things went differently.):

A "girl" who prefers trousers and wild play will probably be called a tomboy, but that is not something the adults around it worry too much. Even sentences like "I'l like to be a boy" can meet with some understanding, like "Yes, I really think it is not OK that 'girls are not supposed to do this and that'." The behaviour would probably not being noticed as cross-gender behaviour, or little meaning would be attributed to it. Consequently, the choice of clothes would hardly be seen as or called cross-dressing, either. Also, chances are, that a "girl", by the time she reaches puberty, has also learned that there is just not one way of being a "proper girl" or a "proper woman", she will already know that there are several role modes for her, some of which are mutually exclusive. (So a "girl" that is not one sort of "proper girl" will still be a girl, and might be a perfectly prober "other sort of girl") Coupled with an education that places much more emphasis on "understanding" and "looking for common ground" she is much less likely to think in strikt categories than a "boy". That is usually true even for "100% transsexual men" (as well as of other gender-variant female-bodies people, of course).

On the other hand, a "boy" who likes feminine dresses and feminine behaviour will meet with a far different reaction. He will meet with at least strong discouragement, and probably be sanctioned as well; not just by the adults around him, but also by his peer group. If he still will not comply, psychological or medical help will probably be sought; and right now that "help" tends to try to enforce the assigned gender as well. (Thank god that's changing!) The expression "cross-dressing" might be used, providing it exists in the vocabulary of those wishing to describe the behaviour. Needless to say that there are several other expressions that might also be used, from "gender identity disorder" over "transvestite", "probably homosexual", to "freak", "sissy" and the like. Consequently, the "boy" will learn from a very early age to hide both his feelings and his behaviour. Also, the role models available for boys are much narrower than they are for girl, especially when it comes to gender expression. (A "boy" that is not a "proper" boy is pretty much nothing.) That is coupled with an education that puts a lot of emphasis on categories and hierarchies and action instead of reflection. Again, that is usually true even for "100% transsexual women" (as well as of other gender-variant male-bodies people, of course).

Only now can we come to the question what such a child might call his/herself when grown up. (The six words I gave BTW were just examples, three modern western, three not; there are far more possibilities.) And now it gets really complicated. Assuming that "gender identity disorder" (GID) is something that exists in various degrees, ranging from the occasional need to express cross-gender feelings to a complete feeling of belonging to "the other" sex, (an assumption that is very common and does make some sense, but is not entirley uncontested), and assuming that self-description equals identity (which is a bit simplifying the matter), at least the following variables come into play:

• The degree of "GID" the person is aware of at a given point in time.
• The role models and the terms describing them available to that person at that time.
• The degree that the person is willing to adapt to any of these role models, which is something that often changes considerably over time.
• The need of that person to adapt to one particluar, pre-existing "GID" role model at all. (Much more pronounced in "men" than in "women", for reasons stated above.)
• Very often, feedback to the adoption of a role or a role model. (If that person is told that they are not "a real whatever", they might start looking for another role or role model.)
• And of course many variables that lie in the person themself, like the ability to deal with social problems that might arise, marriage status, social environment, religious upbringing, and many, many more.

So from that it follows that you might have two persons, both being for example anatomically male (let's leave IS out for now, it's complicated enough), both having had a similar upbringing, both the same sexual preference for men and both the same access to "GID" role models, and both are having the same "degree of GID". I would consider the chances quite high that one of them identifies as a male-to-female transsexual who is "really" a perfectly normal woman with some anatomical problems, and the other identitfies as a male cross-dresser, with some variations based on how he deals with his "homosexual" feelings. If both prefered women, than you would have one lesbian transsexual woman and a perfectly normal man who likes to cross-dress (and might identitfy as cross-dresser; do compare transvestism). And don't get me started on the female-to-male direction, because I'd probably suffer from repetetive stress injury before I had covered the basics. ;-)

In the example, the first person who identifies as a woman would call female clothes her "normal" clothes and consider male clothes "cross-dressing", while the second person would consider male clothes "normal" and female clothes "cross-dressing".

 

As to what other people call cross-dressing, that is usually fairly simple: If they percieve one person to be of one sex/gender, and percieve that person to wear clothes of "the other" sex/gender, that is usually called cross-dressing. So, if the first person was not passing well, she might be called a cross-dresser, while, if the second person does pass well, s/he would not be called a cross-dresser, because s/he would not be "read". S/he would however be called a cross-dresser by people who know that "he" is "really" male. I might also add that by now I heard quite a few stories of cisgendered people being wrongfully "read" as cross-dresser because of physical features or behaviour that the observer firmly attributed to one sex/gender.

That, of course, is the average reaction, which does not distinguish between sex and gender, and does regard both as fixed. People who at least regard gender role as changeable would use a different terminology, however, that terminology is not consistent. People who divert the world of "people with GID" into "proper transsexuals" and "perverts" have a very different usage from those judge what is "proper" (non-cross) clothes based on the momentary need of the person in question; cross-dressing then can only occur involuntarily. And there are lots of options in between. -- AlexR 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ There is a real reason for distinguishing sex from gender, and I would very much like to keep that distinction from disappearing in the fog. The term was borrowed from grammar to use in sexology because researchers had need for a way to distinguish between the anatomical sex of the genitalia and the "brain sex" of the individual. Most of the time people with male genitalia have a masculine gender identity, and people with female genitalia have a feminine gender identity. But it is sometimes the case that people with male genitalia identify themselves as women in which case we speak of male sex coupled with female gender, When people with female genitalis identify themselves as men we speak of female sex coupled with male gender.

100% ack, but of course there is more variation than just identifying as "the other" gender. [AR]

§ I think you and I agree that people in society in general "do not distinguish between sex and gender." Seeing male genitalia the reaction is, basically, "You are a man, and you'd sure better act like one. Seeing female genitalia the reaction is, "You are a woman, and you'd be better off acting like one." Males who do not conform are currently exposed to much stronger sanctions than are females. I think that you will also agree that it is virtually impossible (except in the case of people from different cultures) that a person with one kind of genitalia will fail to have been made aware that the society regards that person as behaving in a way that is not socio-normal should clothing considered appropriate to the other kind of genitalia be worn. So such a person probably could say, "I am dressing in what is appropriate to who I really as as a total human being, but my society regards me as cross-coding when I do so because they only want to judge on the basis of my genitalia."

Actually, presumed genitalia most of the time, because most people never get to see all that many genitalia of other persons. Not to mention that even a person that has had SRS, or even some cases of IS going back to a much more suitable gender and sex will often be judged on what people assume to be their "real" (original) sex.

As for the ammount of sanctioning a person experiences, actually one right now very small group experiences at least rather little of it, namely children whose parents notice very early on that the child is transgendered, and who, if appropriate, let the child change its gender role as early as possible. Such a change usually causes surprisingly few problems. (At least here in Germany, that is. I have no data for the US.) Since the worst of sanctioning does occur in and after puberty, such a child, while having been made aware of norms, escapes most of the sanctions. But while these cases are becoming more common, they are still very rare. But of course, that goes far beyond cross-dressing. [AR]

§ I believe that social sanctions (anything from execution to mild teasing) are almost always imposed when people in the community believe the anatomical sex of some person to be inappropriately "announced" by the clothing worn. I can only imagine very limited circumstances (if any) in the U.S. where a person with, e.g., male genitalia would be criticized by the community for wearing trousers and no bra, where that would depend on the community knowing that the person's gender was feminine and therefore incongruent with the male clothing chosen.

Actually, it happens: Trans-people who are transitioning experience that kind of sanctioning quite often, both from "caretakers" and others in the trans* community, occasionally also from others. Letters of recommendation or similar have been withheld to transwomen who dared to come to a caretaker wearing (female) trousers, same with transmen whose hair was "too long". Not to mention "recommendations" (which were really orders) to change into a more "gender-appropriate" job, or even to change sexual orientation. While this does indeed sound pretty absurd, it happens.[AR]

§ Outside of one's own culture, all sorts of funny things can happen. The W.A.S.P. male sex masculine gender person from the U.S. will very rarely be aware that in Japan he will cross-oode with "feminine" behavior if he was enculturated the usual way while in his own country. Whether the pelvis is tilted back or tilted forward is a gender signal that people generally are not even aware of. But U.S. males typically tilt their pelvises backward (which tends to tuck the bulge in their trousers out of sight instead of thrusting it out), but in Japan the signal is just the reverse. I think we are more interested in the cases where an individual knows that genitalia and clothing are incongruent according to the ideas of the individual's society (or the society s/he is operating in at the moment). P0M 23:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, since inter-cultural cross-coding is probably almost always both unintentional and incomplete I think we can safely leave this out. -- AlexR 01:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ O.K., I don't think we have any real disagreement. The ideas about who is cross-coding were set up before medical intervention was possible, and if we restrict ourselves to "vanilla" cases (i.e., cases not involving intersexuals and other seldom-seen complications) and to cases that might come to adjucication (or kangaroo court or lynch mob), then if somebody really wanted to prove that Gene/Jean was "breaking God's law" and the accused claimed to be wearing the appropriate clothing then the "authorities" would just strip the person. They might assess the genitalia incorrectly (e.g., in the case of an XY individual whose body had not been masculinized and who had vestigal testicles in the labia, etc.), but their decision would be made on the congruence or lack of it between what they believed was the person's anatomical sex and what they believed was the appropriate clothing for that sex. (So if the aforesaid XY person looked female to them and was wearing trousers and no bra, then they would punish that person according to the rules of their society.)

§ I'm trying to get back to the (unreal) prototypical situation in which there are only people who are males and people who are females and there are only costumes appropriate to males only and costumes appropriate to females only. Reality is lots more complicated than that, in fact the diversity is potentially sort of infinite. (Do any two people really have exactly the same sexuality? Maybe sexualities are as individual as fingerprints.) But languages and laws generally try to account for everything in black and white terms. (Or they may be generous and allow for black, white, and something in-between -- but still they cram everybody into a limited number of sets.)

While it is undoubtably true that there are a large number of "sexualities", I think this is pretty unrelated to what we are debating here, namely, gender identity and gender presentation, and to some extend sex. Although of those the very same thing can be said, they are not the same as "sexuality". I know that Patrick knows that, but we both now that many other people don't, and worse, don't want to know.

As for languages, not all are limited to 2 or even three, some have more genders than that. However, English sticks with two, so I guess we can keep that ;-) Law by necessity stick to terms that applie to large numbers, it cannot take into account any individual case. The problem therefore is usually not a law, but the fact that the law is just a picture of its society. And if that society also refuses to take individual needs into account, then we do have a problem. [AR]

§ Of course we need to point out that the individual thinks s/he is whatever s/he thinks s/he is -- and that doesn't have to have any connection with what the society would like everyone to believe. P0M 02:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a statement that I would agree with 150%. But then again, it is one that does not exactly apply to gender alone. Racial stereotypes for example come to mind, which function along very similar lines. -- AlexR 06:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ Above, Alex said: "What looks like cross-dressing to others does not have to be cross-dressing for the person doing it, and vice versa." Since he has not yet had time to respond to the materials I posted immediately above, I'll just say that this single quotation seems to me to pretty well give the bottom line to what I wrote above, but I would reword it slightly to make it more perfectly relativistic: What other people call cross-dressing (on their assessment of the sex of the individual being evaluated) does not have to be cross-dressing from the perspective of the person doing it, and vice-versa. P0M 03:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to make that "assessment of the "true" sex/gender of the individual". But while this statement is a nice summary indeed, it will be a long time until it is regarded as a plain and simple truth; right now it needs a lot of explanation. And, just to make that clear to some readers: What Patrick and I were discussing relates to people doing (or not doing) it for reasons that are somehow related to their gender identity. There are other reasons for cross-dressing as well. -- AlexR 06:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)